|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 4, 2019 20:48:28 GMT -5
This sighting by Mencke of Condon conversing with Fisch in 1932 and reporting it in a letter to Gov. Hoffman seems kind of weird. Unless Mencke knew Fisch for several years, it's very doubtful that he could have identified Fisch in 1935 (when Hoffman became governor). Remember that Fisch was not a figure known to the general public until after Hauptmann's arrest in Sept. 1934 (and was already deceased by then). So Mencke's capability of identifying Fisch - presumably from newspaper photos - more than two years (minimum) after purportedly sighting Fisch is highly questionable.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 4, 2019 21:34:33 GMT -5
Nevermind - the name was spelled differently in the book than on here. This issue has been discussed. Sorry about that. I searched under 'New Rochelle" and viola! there it was. I did a search on this site so I don't ask a question already asked. I also did a regular Google search and cannot find anything. Michael, Amy, Wayne - I finished reading "New Light in the Lindbergh Kidnapping Mystery" by Vincent Godfrey Burns. I took a lot of what he said as hearsay and rumor, but this has me puzzled: "An affidavit which had been turned over to Governor Hoffman seems to have important relevance here. It was sworn to by the proprietor of a restaurant and his wife in New Rochelle, New York. The man's name was Mencke. In this affidavit he and his wife testified that on several occasions in his restaurant prior to the kidnapping, Violet Sharpe, Dr. Condon, Isidor Fisch and Oliver Whately, the Lindbergh butler, had met there for discussions. After the kidnapping the group never returned to his restaurant. Later in the summer of 1932 Mencke saw Dr. Condon and Isidor Fisch conversing earnestly together at City Island. He spoke with Dr. Condon who recalled seeing him (Mencke) in his restaurant. Were these discussions in the Mencke restaurant connected with the kidnapping? Could Mencke's restaurant have been the scene where the kidnapping was planned?" I cannot find anything anywhere. Hi I Love Dallas Forth Worth, Burns made a typo. The couple who made the claim was Gustave and Sophie Mancke. The owned an ice cream parlor & lunchroom on Main Street in New Rochelle. Their statement about seeing Sharp, Whateley, and Fisch (but not Condon) at their ice cream parlor is the basis for two books -- Wayne Jones' Murder of Justice (see page 615) and Jim Bahm's Beneath the Winter Sycamores. One book is fiction and the other non-fiction. You can choose which is which
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2019 20:15:14 GMT -5
I have never embraced the Mancke story so I didn't really think on this too much. I did find the Burns book interesting even though there are factual errors in it. I thank Wayne for sharing it and I also thank Steve (Wolfman) for making me aware of the book.
Burns did bring up Harold Olson who believed he was the Lindbergh baby. Burns found the story fascinating and thought there was a real resemblance between Olson and CAL. Since Olson's story also included Capone and the mob, Burns also mentioned in the book that Condon had referred to the ransom note symbol as the sign of the mafia (Trigamba) which also ties in with Olson's story, hence Burns chapter "Did the Lindbergh Baby Really Die?".
This mention of Harold Olson's story caused me to pull out the book, "In Search of the Lindbergh Baby" by Theon Wright published in 1981. I reviewed some of the material in that book about the corpse found and about how Lindbergh had identified the corpse as his son based basically on the teeth and the overlapping toes. Then I read something very interesting. It involves Walter S. Ross's book, "The Last Hero: Charles A. Lindbergh", and concerns Lindbergh and his ID of the corpse.
Ross originally published his Lindbergh book in 1964. Lindbergh did not like to read books written about him by other authors. However, CAL's own publisher asked Lindbergh to read this book. Lindbergh did and he then produced a typed, seventy-six page review of the book listing corrections which were turned over to Walter Ross that CAL wanted made. Ross did not have to make the corrections but he finally did and the book was reprinted in 1976 with the corrections. One of those corrections Lindbergh wanted made was the following:
In Ross's original 1964 edition Ross had written: "He (Lindbergh) looked at the foot with the overlapping toes." (italic mine) In Ross's revised edition in 1976 per Lindbergh's corrections, he wrote: "He (Lindbergh) looked at the foot with the turned-in toes." (italic mine)
We know for a fact that Charlie did have turned in toes according to Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow and also the 1931 picture of Charlie being held by his grandmother, Evangeline Lindbergh that shows clearly both of Charlie's feet with a turned in little toe on each foot. Wayne, I think you posted this picture somewhere on the board!
So, it looks like many years later we have Lindbergh verifying the true condition of Charlie's feet as he remembered them to be, turned in toes not overlapping toes!!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 6, 2019 12:20:28 GMT -5
A NJSP statement dated 10/17/1934 seems to negate everything Burns' claimed in his book. Sorry for the poor quality. Michael, do you have a cleaner copy? Attachment Deleted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2019 14:26:04 GMT -5
Thanks for posting this Wayne!
This certainly does throw water on Burns story in his book about the confession that was made to him regarding a kidnapping. In the book, Burns claims the man who came to him was a gardener who had worked for the Morrows and this man had gotten involved with a kidnapping. I thought the whole confession sounded basically unbelievable. There were false confessions to the Lindbergh kidnapping actually made by people, however.
I still think the book was interesting. Some of the arguments he makes in that book are about points we have discussed on this board. I always end up finding something to research whenever ever I read a new book.
What do you mean that the 1936 document you posted negates "everything" in Burns book? It certainly addresses the confession Burns wrote about since in his book he didn't mention Hauptmann as the confessor. Burns also wrote about other things in that book besides the confession. That book didn't come out until 1972!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 7, 2019 11:28:06 GMT -5
Sorry for the poor quality. Michael, do you have a cleaner copy? Yes. This report can be found in three different places. At 1705, 56, and I believe a copy also exists in the Hoffman Collection ... but the one you've posted "works" for me. The sequence of events goes something like this: Burns was shown a picture of Hauptmann which he identified. However, in his affidavit he says " I intend to visit the Bronx County Jail to further satisfy myself, so as to be positive." At the time Leon had written the report you posted Burns hadn't yet seen Hauptmann in person. On December 14, 1934 Burns wrote Wilentz asking for a copy of his affidavit and that " I am still awaiting word from you as to when I am to have opportunity of seeing Hauptmann." Wilentz sends him a copy but does not address him viewing Hauptmann. Does his book address this? I have a hard copy that Sue once sent me but I don't have it out and its filed away. My next recollection of Burns was his shouting and disrupting the Trial in Flemington. Then later he wrote this letter to Lindbergh: imgur.com/Vmu4YrLHoffman claimed that Burns had been a personal friend for " years" and that he was a " very brilliant young man" but that he believed that (among other things) his financial worries connected to his church caused his current " mental condition." Hoffman called his story " vague" and of " little value." One thing about Hoffman was that if he saw any possible value anywhere he would do his best to follow it up. For him to say what's written above is important when considering this angle.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 9, 2019 11:22:19 GMT -5
Ross's original "overlapping toes" description of the corpse wasn't made up out of thin air. It was taken from Dr. Mitchell's autopsy report. Getting Ross to change this to "turned-in toes" was not an honest correction. The living Charlie did have turned in toes (as per the letter from Dr. Van Ingen to Mrs. Morrow) but the corpse did not. So we have a discrepancy here, and, in getting Ross to change this vital point, Lindbergh was in all likelihood covering up the discrepancy to fool the reader into believing that the corpse was that of his son when in all likelihood it was not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2019 17:37:43 GMT -5
Ross's original "overlapping toes" description of the corpse wasn't made up out of thin air. It was taken from Dr. Mitchell's autopsy report. Getting Ross to change this to "turned-in toes" was not an honest correction. The living Charlie did have turned in toes (as per the letter from Dr. Van Ingen to Mrs. Morrow) but the corpse did not. So we have a discrepancy here, and, in getting Ross to change this vital point, Lindbergh was in all likelihood covering up the discrepancy to fool the reader into believing that the corpse was that of his son when in all likelihood it was not. The important thing to take away from this is that Lindbergh himself wanted this change made about his son's foot. Was he actually setting the record straight by wanting this change made? Should this "correction" be considered by us as an admittance that the corpse he identified as his son in May 1932, really wasn't Charlie? If so, why then did Lindbergh say it was his son if he knew it really wasn't?
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Mar 10, 2019 9:31:19 GMT -5
When Charlie's body was found, one of the items found on it was a leather toe pad to separate the toes. Doesn't such an implement point to a toe deformity?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2019 12:52:54 GMT -5
When Charlie's body was found, one of the items found on it was a leather toe pad to separate the toes. Doesn't such an implement point to a toe deformity? I have reviewed the reports surrounding the finding of Charlie's body and there is no mention of a leather toe pad being found on or near the corpse. What is your source for this?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 10, 2019 15:15:49 GMT -5
Suppose CAL Sr. knew the real story of what happened to his son, dead or alive at this point. The truth might have inculpated him and/or his staff in a crime, or at the very least, been damaging to his image. So by identifying another body as that of his son, Lindbergh potentially saved his public image, and even garnered additional empathy from the general public. You could even call it a great PR move. Additionally, a phony identification would finally end all the time and (seemingly) effort expended in the publicly-monitored search for his son, and would allow him to return more to a pre-"kidnap" life style.
Note that identifying the body in the woods as Charlie, he was able to have that body cremated, which practically circumvented any future review of the body. This might not have been the case had the body been buried.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 19:21:48 GMT -5
Additionally, a phony identification would finally end all the time and (seemingly) effort expended in the publicly-monitored search for his son, and would allow him to return more to a pre-"kidnap" life style. So, if the body was not really Charlie, but was a substitute to bring closure for Lindbergh, who would have orchestrated something like that? Wouldn't Lindbergh have needed to be aware that this was going to happen? Otherwise, CAL would not ID a body that wasn't his son. In Michael's book, The Dark Corners Volume I, Chapter 15, pages 317 & 318, we read that Lindbergh checks Charlie's teeth. There is no mention of CAL commenting on the toes of the corpse. After checking the teeth, Hauck asks Lindbergh if the corpse is his son and then Lindbergh answers in the affirmative and walks out of the room in silence. Many books have written that Lindbergh looked at the toes during this identification process but none of them (that I could find) have any source document for Lindbergh commenting on the toes. Lindbergh's correction to Ross's book is the only time I have encountered CAL addressing the toe issue directly. If there is a report out there that has CAL commenting at the morgue about the toes, I would love to know about it. There are reports of Betty Gow's morgue visit with comments on the right foot, however.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 13, 2019 8:14:11 GMT -5
Nothing that we know of precludes the possibility that Lindbergh could have arranged a body of another child with similar features to those of CAL Jr. to stand in as a substitute. Lindbergh had friends and associates in contact, perhaps through intermediaries, with institutions where children not uncommonly died. Think of hospitals, orphanages, tuberculosis institutions, homes for the "feeble-minded," etc.
And nothing that we know of rules out the possibility that Lindbergh expected such a body to be discovered sometime in the near future. There was a rather inexplicable delay of about a day between the time Lindbergh was notified of a body being found and the time he appeared to (purportedly) identify it. There was practically no emotion shown by him at the time of identification, nor was there any mention, nor any emotion shown - correct me if I'm wrong here - of the body being found in Anne Morrow Lindbergh's diary. The "identification" was devoid of emotion on CAL Sr.'s part. Once identified, the body was quickly removed to a crematorium. There was no formal funeral service before the body was quickly cremated. None of this computes to a father grieving over a the body of a deceased son.
|
|